EFFECTS OF A 4-WEEK YOUTH BASEBALL
CONDITIONING PROGRAM ON THROWING VELOCITY
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
RAFAEL F. ESCAMILLA,1 GLENN S. FLEISIG,2 KYLE YAMASHIRO,3 TONY MIKLA,3 RUSSELL DUNNING,3
LONNIE PAULOS,1 AND JAMES R. ANDREWS1,2
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023
1
Andrews-Paulos Research and Education Institute, Gulf Breeze, Florida; 2American Sports Medicine Institute, Birmingham,
Alabama; and 3Results Physical Therapy and Training Center, Sacramento, California
ABSTRACT
Escamilla, RF, Fleisig, GS, Yamashiro, K, Mikla, T, Dunning, R,
Paulos, L, and Andrews, JR. Effects of a 4-week youth baseball
conditioning program on throwing velocity. J Strength Cond
Res 24(12): 3247–3254, 2010—Effects of a 4-week youth
baseball conditioning program on throwing velocity. This study
examined the effects of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning
program on maximum throwing velocity. Thirty-four youth
baseball players (11–15 years of age) were randomly and
equally divided into control and training groups. The training
group performed 3 sessions (each 75 minutes) weekly for 4
weeks, which comprised a sport specific warm-up, resistance
training with elastic tubing, a throwing program, and stretching.
Throwing velocity was assessed initially and at the end of the 4-
week conditioning program for both control and training groups.
The level of significance used was p , 0.05. After the 4-week
conditioning program, throwing velocity increased significantly
(from 25.1 6 2.8 to 26.1 6 2.8 m
s21) in the training group but
did not significantly increase in the control group (from 24.2 6
3.6 to 24.0 6 3.9 m
s21). These results demonstrate that the
short-term 4-week baseball conditioning program was effective
in increasing throwing velocity in youth baseball players.
Increased throwing velocity may be helpful for pitchers (less
time for hitters to swing) and position players (decreased time
for a runner to advance to the next base).
KEY WORDS resistance training, little league, ball velocity
INTRODUCTION
O
f the roughly 2.5 million baseball players in the
USA, approximately 80% participate in the 14
and under youth leagues, and another 15–20%
participate at the high school youth level (3). Less
than 1% of all baseball players are at the collegiate or
Address correspondence to Rafael F. Escamilla, rescamil@csus.edu.
24(12)/3247–3254
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2010 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
professional levels (3). With approximately 99% of baseball
players participating in youth and high school leagues, it is
important for strength and conditioning specialists to be
knowledgeable in performance enhancement and training in
youth (under 18 years of age) baseball players.
There are limited studies that have investigated the effects
of resistance training programs in youth baseball players on
baseball performance variables. Szymanski et al. (11,13)
investigated the effects of a 12-week periodized training
program, largely comprising wrist and forearm training, on
bat velocity in high school baseball players. Szymanski et al.
(10,12) investigated a 12-week medicine ball, torso rotation
training, and a stepwise periodized resistance training
program with bat swings on bat velocity and torso rotational
and sequential hip–torso–arm rotational strength. Wooden
et al. (15) investigated the effects of a 5-week resistance
training program in teenage baseball players consisting of
isolated shoulder internal and external rotation exercises on
shoulder internal and external rotation shoulder torque and
throwing velocity. However, there are no known studies that
have investigated the effects of a baseball-specific condition-
ing program on throwing velocity in youth baseball players.
One component of performance enhancement in baseball
is throwing velocity. For example, a pitcher with a good
fastball sets up other pitches that help fool the hitter, such as
the changeup and curveball. Throwing the fastball pitch with
greater throwing velocity allows less time for the batter to
identify the pitch and decide whether or not to swing.
Therefore, a fastball pitch thrown with greater velocity is
often more difficult to hit compared to a fastball pitch thrown
with less velocity, assuming similar ball movement and
location over the plate.
Throwing velocity is also important to position players. For
example, a ground ball softly hit to the short stop or third
baseman requires a hard throw with high velocity and
accuracy to throw out the runner. Similarly, an outfielder
trying to throw out a base runner at home plate requires high
throwing velocity and accuracy. Throwing velocity may
increase by improving throwing mechanics or by employing
an effective baseball conditioning program, which can
enhance muscular strength and power. Although several
studies have analyzed the throwing mechanics in youth
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3247
 Four-Week Baseball Conditioning Program
pitchers (5,7,8), it is unclear how improving throwing
mechanics affects throwing velocity.
Although other studies have examined the effects of
resistance training on bat velocity (10,11), to our knowledge,
this is the first study that has examined the effects of a baseball
conditioning program on throwing velocity in youth baseball
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
players. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects
of a 4-week youth baseball conditioning program (comprising
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023
throwing, stretching, and resistance tubing exercises) on
maximum throwing velocity. It was hypothesized that after
a 4-week baseball conditioning program, the training group
would exhibit a significant increase in throwing velocity. It was
also hypothesized that there would not be a significant
difference between all pretest and posttest throwing velocity
measurements in the control group.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
Because throwing velocity is important for all positions in
baseball (as described above), this study examined whether
a short-term 4-week baseball conditioning program was
effective in increasing throwing velocity. Because youth
athletes increase musculature strength through maturation,
which can affect throwing velocity, we used an age-matched
control group to compare to the experimental (training)
group.
Subjects
Thirty-four youth baseball players between 11 and 15 years
of age volunteered as subjects and were randomly and
equally divided into control and training groups. Both
control and training groups participated in their normal
school activities (e.g., physical education class) and extra-
curricular activities, such as running and playing school
sports other than baseball, because baseball was not in
season at the time of this study. Both the control and training
groups were asked to list any activities or sports they
performed during the 4-week period of the study, and both
groups listed similar activities and sports, such as running,
playing basketball, soccer, or tennis, playing catch with
a baseball, and performing push-ups and sit-ups in physical
education class. The primary difference between the control
and training groups is that the training group participated in
a 4-week baseball-specific conditioning program, whereas
the control group did not.
The subjects mean (SD) age, mass, and height were 12.5
(1.5) years, 52.4 (17.7) kg, and 159.7 (12.8) cm, respectively, in
the control group, and 12.9 (1.7) years, 53.9 (20.7) kg, and
163.8 (14.0) cm, respectively, in the training group. Inclusion
criteria for all subjects required each participant to be
a healthy baseball player, no history of upper extremity
surgery, no shoulder pain for the past 12 months, no
rehabilitation for the past 12 months, no participation in
a formal resistance training program the 4 weeks before the
study (all subjects in both control and training groups were
the TM
3248 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
untrained individuals and did not have a regular resistance
training routine), no participation in a formal resistance
training program during the 4-week period of the study, such
as a weight training class in school (not including push-ups,
sit-ups, or related calesthenic exercises that may be a daily
part of physical education class), and no participation in
a school or league baseball program during the 4-week
period of the study. All subjects and their parents provided
written informed consent, and the protocol used for this
study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at
California State University, Sacramento.
Procedures
Description of Baseball Conditioning Program. The baseball
conditioning program for the training group was approxi-
mately 75 minutes in duration thrice a week for 4 weeks. Two
experienced trainers trained all 17 subjects in the training
group throughout the 4-week duration. The initial 10 minutes
of the program comprised general warm-up and range of
motion exercises, including arm circles in multiple directions,
side stretch to the right and left, forearm supination and
pronation range of motion exercises, and wrist flexion and
extension range of motion exercises, each performed for 2 sets
of 25 repetitions.
The subsequent 30 minutes of the program consisted of
using elastic tubing (‘‘MVP Band,’’ A Change of Pace, Inc,
Davis, CA, USA) for 17 upper extremity resistance exercises
for muscular strength, power, and endurance. The MVP Band
is different from most elastic tubing devices, because it was
attached around the wrist instead of a handle that was held in
the hands. The 17 resistance exercises were performed for 1 set
of 20–25 repetitions and included the following: (a) elbow
extension (Figures 1A, B); (b) arm extension (Figures 2A, B);
(c) chest fly (Figures 3A, B); (d) reverse chest fly (performed
the opposite of chest fly); (e) rowing (Figures 4A, B); (f)
internal rotation with shoulder flexed 90° (Figures 5A, B);
(g) external rotation with shoulder flexed 90° (Figures 6A, B);
(h) internal rotation with shoulder abducted 0° (Figures 7A,
B); (i) external rotation with shoulder abducted 0° (per-
formed the opposite of internal rotation with shoulder
abducted 0°); (j) internal rotation with shoulder abducted 90°
(Figures 8A, B); (k) external rotation with shoulder abducted
90° (performed the opposite of internal rotation with
shoulder abducted 90°); (l) shoulder abduction to 90°
(Figures 9A, B); (m) shoulder abduction to 180° (Figures
10A, B); (n) D2 diagonal pattern flexion (Figures 11A, B); (0)
reverse throw (Figures 12A, B); (p) D2 diagonal pattern
extension (reverse of D2 Diagonal pattern flexion, starting
with shoulder flexed and externally rotated and elbow bent
and ending with shoulder extended and internally rotated
and elbow straight with hand at opposite hip); (q) standard
forward throw (Figures 13A, B).
Each resistance exercise was performed in a 3-second
repetition (1 second for the concentric phase and 2 seconds
for the eccentric phase). Each subject was instructed on how
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023

Figure 1. A, B) Elbow extension. Figure 3. A, B) Chest fly (horizontal adduction).

Figure 2. A, B) Arm extension. Figure 4. A, B) Rowing.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3249

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Four-Week Baseball Conditioning Program
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023

Figure 5. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder flexed 90°. Figure 7. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder abducted 0°.

Figure 6. A, B) External rotation with shoulder flexed 90°. Figure 8. A, B) Internal rotation with shoulder abducted 90°.

the TM

3250 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023

Figure 9. A, B) Shoulder abduction to 90°. Figure 11. A, B) D2 diagonal pattern flexion.

Figure 10. A, B) Biceps curl. Figure 12. A, B) Reverse throw.

VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3251

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Four-Week Baseball Conditioning Program
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023
Figure 13. A, B) Standard forward throw.
to perform each exercise with proper form and technique and
use enough resistance for each exercise that allowed them to
perform 20–25 repetitions but no more. The subjects adjusted
the tension in the MVP Band tubing to accommodate their
improvements in muscular strength throughout the 4-week
duration.
The next 30 minutes consisted of a distance-based interval
throwing long toss program, which has been shown to be
effective in enhancing throwing performance in youth
baseball players (1). After a 5-minute warm-up throwing at
a 50-ft distance, each subject performed pivot throws with an
arc (no step allowed) for 15 minutes (60-ft throws for
5 minutes, 75-ft throws for 5 minutes, and 100-ft throws for
5 minutes). Subsequently, each subject performed long toss
throws with an arc (1 step allowed) for 10 minutes (100-ft
throws for 5 minutes and 125-ft throws and beyond for
5 minutes). Subjects 13–15 years of age ended their throwing
by performing 5 hard throws at 150 ft, 5 hard throws at 125 ft,
and 5 hard throws at 100 ft. Subjects 11–12 years of age
ended their throwing by performing 5 hard throws at 100 ft,
5 hard throws at 75 ft, and 5 hard throws at 50 ft. The final
5 minutes of the program consisted of shoulder external
rotation stretches, which consisted of 15 repetitions for each
arm for external rotation at 0° shoulder abduction, external
rotation at 90° shoulder abduction, and external rotation at
0° shoulder flexion.
the TM
3252 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Throwing Velocity Assessment. Assessment of throwing velocity
was performed for all subjects at Results Physical Therapy and
Training Center (Sacramento, CA, USA) 2 days before the
start of the baseball conditioning program (pretest) and 2 days
after the completion of the baseball conditioning program
(posttest). All subjects were tested at approximately the same
time in the afternoon or evening during both the pretest and
posttest. All subjects were instructed to be well rested and
hydrated before testing, and not have eaten any food at least 2
hours before testing. After approximately 5 minutes of
a general warm-up consisting of walking, lunging, step-up
drills to a box, and stretching, and approximately 5 minutes of
light to moderate effort throwing, the throwing velocity of
each subject was then assessed. Each subject threw overhand
from flat ground at maximal effort to a target positioned at
approximately chest level and 13.7 m away. Subjects started
with both feet on a line and were then allowed to take one
stride toward the target as they threw the ball. Throwing
velocity was recorded from a calibrated Jugs Tribar Sport
radar gun (Jugs Pitching Machine Company, Tualatin, OR,
USA) as the ball left the pitcher’s hand and was accurate
within 0.22 m
s21. Five maximum effort-throwing trials were
performed and recorded. Approximately 30 seconds of rest was
provided between all throwing trials to prevent muscular fatigue
from occurring.
Questionnaire. During the posttest, subjects in the training
group completed a questionnaire asking their satisfaction with
the conditioning program, and their perception of how the
conditioning program affected their throwing velocity. The
questionnaire given to the training group asked them if they felt
the conditioning program did not help, may have helped,
probably helped, or definitely helped increase throwing
velocity. Subjects in the control group and training group also
completed a posttest questionnaire answering questions
regarding what activities and sports they participated in during
the 4-week period between the pretest and posttest.
Statistical Analyses
Dependent t-tests were used assess significant differences in
throwing velocity between pretest and posttest throwing
velocity measurements in the control group and in the
training group. Independent t-tests were also used to assess
significant differences in age, mass, and height between
control and training groups. The level of significance used
was p # 0.05.
RESULTS
There were no significant differences in age, mass, and height
comparisons between control and training groups. Mean
(6SD) throwing velocity comparisons between pretest and
posttest measurements for the control and training groups are
shown in Table 1. In the training group, throwing velocity was
significantly greater after the conditioning program (posttest
measurements) compared to before the conditioning program
(pretest measurements), whereas in the control group, there

TABLE 1. Mean 6 SD data are shown between pretest and posttest throwing velocity for the training (n = 17) and control
(n = 17) groups.
Group Pretest (m
s21)
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Throwing velocity Training*
Control
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023
*Significant difference (p , 0.05) between pretest and posttest.
were no significant differences between pre and posttest
throwing velocity measurements.
All subjects in the training group did not miss any training
sessions, except 2 subjects, who missed 1 session, demon-
strating excellent compliance with the training program.
Moreover, all subjects in the training group were satisfied with
the conditioning program. Approximately 80% of the training
group subjects responded to the questionnaire by saying they
felt the conditioning program definitely helped increase their
throwing velocity, whereas the remaining 20% of the subjects
said the conditioning program may have helped or probably
helped increase their throwing velocity.
DISCUSSION
As hypothesized, throwing velocity increased in the training
group after the 4-week baseball conditioning program. These
results demonstrate that even a short-term conditioning
program can result in increased throwing velocity in youth
baseball players. Because youth are often involved in multiple
sports and activities, and often have a shorter attention span
compared to older athletes, a short-term baseball conditioning
program may be an attractive alternative compared to a longer
duration program (e.g., 10–12 weeks), especially because the
results of this study demonstrate that baseball performance
variables can be enhanced in a short-term program.
The improvement in ball velocity may have been affected by
both the training intensity and training volume, and more
research is needed in this area. The resistance training program
in this study involved employing moderate intensity rather
than high intensity, the latter being more conducive in
maximizing strength gain (9). However, it was important that
the young subjects in this study be able to perform each
resistance exercise with proper form and technique, and in
a controlled manner, and higher intensity training may
compromise proper form and technique in youth (4).
Moreover, it is common when using elastic tubing for
resistance training to use lower to moderate intensities with
higher number of repetitions, typically between 10 and 25
repetitions (14), and high resistance training with lower
repetitions is typically reserved for free weight or machine
resistance training (9). Although the 1 set of 20–25 repetitions
in this study was more conducive for maximizing muscular
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
Posttest (m
s21) p-Value
25.1 6 2.8 26.1 6 2.8 0.004
24.2 6 3.6 24.0 6 3.9 0.209
endurance improvement and to a lesser extent improving
muscular strength (4,9), both muscular strength and endurance
are important components to achieve for baseball players.
Another reason high intensity was not employed in this study
is that performing high-intensity resistance training with low
repetitions in prepubescent youth is not recommended (4),
because this type of training may increase injury risk in youth.
Because throwing velocity improvement in youth may
simply occur from normal aging and maturation, it was
important to use a control group in the current. Certain
school activities, such as performing push-up and sit-ups in
physical education class, and extracurricular activities, such as
participating in overhead throwing type sports, may affect
throwing velocity gains in youth, and these activities were not
controlled in either the control or training groups. Given the
random assignment of the subjects within the 2 groups, and
given that the baseball conditioning program the only
variable that differed between the groups, it can be concluded
that the conditioning program was the primary reason for the
improvement in throwing velocity in the training group,
especially given that the control group did not improve in
throwing velocity.
Improvements in throwing velocity from resistance training
programs have been previously reported. Carter et al. (2)
investigated the effects of 8 weeks of upper extremity
plyometric training on isokinetic strength and throwing
velocity in collegiate baseball players. Compared to a control
group that participated in off-season nonplyometric strength
and conditioning activities, a plyometric training group
exhibited significantly greater throwing velocity at the end
of the 8-week plyometric program (83.2 mph in pretraining vs.
85.2 mph in posttraining). These authors concluded that
although both resistance training and plyometric training
resulted in strength gains, only the plyometric training group
improved their throwing velocity. These results are supported
by data from Grezios et al. (6), who reported that the stretch-
shortening cycle, which is the foundation of plyometric
training, is the type of muscle contraction that primarily occurs
in overhead throwing, such as in throwing a baseball.
Wooden et al. (15) reported that youth who performed
a 5-week resistance training program consisting of isolated
shoulder internal and external rotation exercises increased
VOLUME 24 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2010 | 3253
 Four-Week Baseball Conditioning Program
throwing velocity by 2.06 mph. The 2- and 2.06-mph increases
in throwing velocity reported by Carter et al. (2) and Wooden
et al. (15), respectively, are similar to the 2.2-mph increase in
throwing velocity reported in this study. Although this study
demonstrated a throwing velocity increase in the training
group, it is unknown which components of the baseball
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
conditioning program (resistance training program or throw-
ing program) was most influential in producing the increased
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 06/08/2023
throwing velocity. Because the baseball conditioning program
in the current combined warm-up, stretching, resistance
training, and throwing, further research is needed in this area
to determine the relative contribution of each of these training
components with respect to increasing throwing velocity.
Future research should focus on comparing the effects of
shorter duration (e.g., 4–6 weeks) vs. longer duration (e.g.,
10–12 weeks) conditioning programs to assess if longer
duration conditioning programs result in greater increases in
throwing velocity compared to shorter duration conditioning
programs. It should also be investigated whether youths are as
compliant with a long-term conditioning program compared
to a shorter duration program, especially because youths are
often very active in both school and extracurricular activities.
Future research is also needed in older postpubescent youth,
such as those in high school, as the mean subject age of 12.5
(1.5) years in this study primarily involved prepubescent
youth in junior high school.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of this study demonstrate that a short-term baseball
conditioning program is effective in enhancing throwing
velocity in youth baseball players. In only 4 weeks, throwing
velocity increased approximately 4% in the group that
participated in the baseball conditioning program but changed
,1% in the group that did not participate in the baseball
conditioning program. Increased throwing velocity may be
helpful for a pitcher, because the batter will have less time to
make a decision as to whether or not to swing at the pitch, and
may help position players, such as a catcher, infielder, or
outfielder trying to throw out a runner attempting to advance
to the next base.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Adel Aitali, Adam
Beckenger, Jeff Blankenship, Rama Bowen, Wes Haven, and
Fallon Hookailo for their assistance during data collection.
the TM
3254 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES
1. Axe, MJ, Snyder-Mackler, L, Konin, JG, and Strube, MJ. De-
velopment of a distance-based interval throwing program for Little
League-aged athletes. Am J Sports Med 24: 594–602, 1996.
2. Carter, AB, Kaminski, TW, Douex, AT Jr, Knight, CA, and Richards, JG.
Effects of high volume upper extremity plyometric training on
throwing velocity and functional strength ratios of the shoulder
rotators in collegiate baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 208–
215, 2007.
3. Conte, S, Requa, RK, and Garrick, JG. Disability days in major league
baseball. Am J Sports Med 29: 431–436, 2001.
4. Faigenbaum, AD, Kraemer, WJ, Blimkie, CJ, Jeffreys, I, Micheli, LJ,
Nitka, M, and Rowland, TW. Youth resistance training: updated
position statement paper from the national strength and condi-
tioning association. J Strength Cond Res 23: S60–S79, 2009.
5. Fleisig, GS, Barrentine, SW, Zheng, N, Escamilla, RF, and Andrews, JR.
Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among
various levels of development. J Biomech 32: 1371–1375, 1999.
6. Grezios, AK, Gissis, IT, Sotiropoulos, AA, Nikolaidis, DV, and
Souglis, AG. Muscle-contraction properties in overarm throwing
movements. J Strength Cond Res 20: 117–123, 2006.
7. Nissen, CW, Westwell, M, Ounpuu, S, Patel, M, Tate, JP, Pierz, K,
Burns, JP, and Bicos, J. Adolescent baseball pitching technique: A
detailed three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 39: 1347–1357, 2007.
8. Sabick, MB, Kim, YK, Torry, MR, Keirns, MA, and Hawkins, RJ.
Biomechanics of the shoulder in youth baseball pitchers: implica-
tions for the development of proximal humeral epiphysiolysis and
humeral retrotorsion. Am J Sports Med 33: 1716–1722, 2005.
9. Stone, MH, O’Bryant, HS, Garhammer, J, McMillan, J, and Rozenek, R.
A theoretical model of strength training. NSCA J 4: 36–40, 1982.
10. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL,
Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of torso rotational strength on
angular hip, angular shoulder, and linear bat velocities of high school
baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1117–1125, 2007.
11. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, Madsen, NH,
and Pascoe, DD. Effect of wrist and forearm training on linear bat-
end, center of percussion, and hand velocities and on time to ball
contact of high school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 20: 231–
240, 2006.
12. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL, and
Pascoe, DD. Effect of twelve weeks of medicine ball training on high
school baseball players. J Strength Cond Res 21: 894–901, 2007.
13. Szymanski, DJ, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, and Pascoe, DD. Effect
of 12 weeks of wrist and forearm training on high school baseball
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 432–440, 2004.
14. Treiber, FA, Lott, J, Duncan, J, Slavens, G, and Davis, H. Effects of
Theraband and lightweight dumbbell training on shoulder rotation
torque and serve performance in college tennis players. Am J Sports
Med 26: 510–515, 1998.
15. Wooden, MJ, Greenfield, B, Johanson, M, Litzelman, L, Mundrane, M,
and Donatelli, RA. Effects of strength training on throwing velocity
and shoulder muscle performance in teenage baseball players. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 15: 223–228, 1992.